Wisconsin immigrant work; what to know among rising deportations
Undocumented workers do an estimated 70% of the work on Wisconsin's dairy farms.
White House border czar Tom Homan said the country could see more workplace immigration actions than ever before.
All United States employers and their new hires must fill out a Form I-9, proving they are legally able to work with required government documents.
WISCONSIN - Gov. Tony Evers said he's worried about the growing push for deportations, while the Trump administration said it's restoring the rule of law.
What we know
White House border czar Tom Homan said the country could see more workplace immigration actions than ever before, saying these undocumented people have no right to be in the United States.
"We're gonna increase the teams greatly, so you're gonna see more teams on the streets you've never seen before. You're gonna see more work site enforcement than you've ever seen in the history of this nation," Homan said. "If we can't find them in the community, we're going to find them at the work site. So we're going to flood the zone and sanctuary cities will get exactly what they don't want: more agents in their neighborhoods, more work site enforcement, because we're going to get the bad guy."
Local perspective
This is not just worrying Evers, but some Wisconsin farmers.
Undocumented workers do an estimated 70% of the work on Wisconsin's dairy farms, according to a University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Workers study.
"I don't know who the hell is going to milk the cows," Evers said. "So I'm fearful [...] if it's suddenly people who are not appropriately documented who are waiting to be documented, and they're picked up because they don't have a document, and that makes them a criminal, that's just bulls—, frankly."
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX LOCAL Mobile app for iOS or Android
The Dairy State has about 70,000 undocumented immigrants, and about 47,000 of them are working, per the Migration Policy Institute's 2019 estimates.
"It's certainly something that is a fear of many farmers across the state that have hispanic labor, immigrant labor," Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden said. "We all have the knowledge that most of our workers are documented, and we shouldn't be having an issue, but what happens when the ice enforcement agents show up and want to go after more people than those who have criminal records?"
All United States employers and their new hires must fill out a Form I-9, proving they are legally able to work with required government documents.
"All of this needs to be done in the first three days of employment," said Brook Mayborne, Metro Milwaukee Society of Human Resource Management president-elect.
It's a felony to use a fake ID for this – and if someone doesn't have the documents within those three days?
"They should be taken off the schedule. They shouldn't be allowed to work until they're able to produce it. That does happen quite a bit, where they're not able to show their documentation," Mayborne said. "The paperwork is retained with the employer. They must retain it for at least three years or for the duration of employment. It's kept on file in case of any questions or audits or things like that."
It's not just the immigrant at risk of deportation, but employers can also face fines and even prison.
Dig deeper
So, when employers are checking papers in the U.S., there are two primary categories of visas: non-immigrant visas and immigrant visas.
The purpose of the non-immigrant visa is temporary stay in the U.S., which means the holder is expected to leave the U.S. when the visa expires.
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
Examples include business visas and student visas, as well as visas for crime victims and human trafficking victims.
With a non-immigrant visa, there's no intent to immigrate. So applicants have to prove they plan to return to their home country when their visa expires.
The purpose of an immigrant visa is to obtain permanent residence in the U.S. that leads to green card status, or lawful permanent resident status.
Examples include family-based immigration, like the spouse of a U.S. citizen, employment-based immigration and diversity visas.
The Source
The information in this post was collected and produced by FOX6 News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Court throws out plea deal for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, two other terrorists
A divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday tossed out an agreement that would have allowed 9/11 terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in another failed effort to end a years-long legal saga surrounding the military prosecution of men held at Guantánamo Bay. The 2-1 D.C. Circuit appeals court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. The deal would have carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed and two co-defendants, potentially taking capital punishment off the table. Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of spearheading the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and another commercial jetliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. Austin said a decision on whether to take the death penalty off the table could only be made by the Secretary of Defense. 3 A federal appeals court tossed out an agreement that would have allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani national accused of spearheading the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, to plead guilty. AP However, legal concerns stemmed from whether the original plea deal was legally binding and whether Austin waited too long to get it dismissed. The court found Austin indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements because the promises made in the deal had not yet been fulfilled, and the government had no adequate alternative remedies. Since the appeals court put the agreement on hold, the defendants were not sentenced Friday as previously scheduled, marking a temporary victory for the Biden administration. 3 The court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. AP 3 A U.S. trooper exits a tent at Camp Justice, part of the U.S. military Guantanamo war crimes court at Guantanamo Bay on June 5, 2008. REUTERS Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao, of the majority opinion, noted the government 'adequately explained that Secretary Austin delayed action to avoid an unlawful influence challenge, waiting to see what type of agreement, if any, would result from the negotiations and only then deciding whether intervention was necessary.' Citing previous unlawful influence allegations against various government officials, including the secretary of defense, Millett and Rao found Austin was 'reasonable' to withdraw from the agreements to avoid additional litigation. 'Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out,' the judges wrote. 'The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment.' Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in dissent, argued that siding with the government would be an overreach. 'The Court's holding is stunning,' Wilkins wrote. 'Not only does the majority believe that Respondents [prosecutors who negotiated the plea deal] did not begin performance, but it holds that the government established a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus or prohibition. 'It is impossible for me to conclude that the government has shown it is clearly and indisputably entitled to relief,' he continued. 'That demanding mandamus standard is even further out of the government's reach where the government cannot cite binding on-point precedent in support of its claims and we are constrained to reviewing for clear error both the Military Judge's finding that the PTAs encompassed the relevant promises and his application of the withdrawal regulation. But even on de novo review of those findings, the government has not met its burden.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court rules former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators
A federal appeals court determined that former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin 'indisputably' had the authority to cancel plea agreements made last year with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants accused of plotting the 9/11 terror attack. The decision overturns a ruling by a military judge last year that plea agreements setting aside the possibility of the death penalty for the men were 'valid and enforceable,' after Austin revoked the deals months before. 'The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun,' court documents outlining the decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said. Wells Dixon, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who previously represented another Guantanamo detainee, Majid Khan, criticized the court ruling on Friday, saying it will 'ensure nothing but the continued lack of justice and accountability for anyone involved in the military commissions.' 'The Biden administration's effort to invalidate the plea agreements that would resolve in lasting convictions and life sentences for the 9/11 defendants was inexplicable,' Dixon said. 'It was a painful betrayal of the 9/11 victim family members, because we know after more than two decades of litigation at Guantanamo, and we know from experience, that the 9/11 cases will never be resolved through a contested trial.' 'Putting aside the fantasy that this case is ever going to go to trial — assuming it does go to trial and that there's a conviction — you get to sentencing, and they have a right to put forward evidence … that they were tortured. That's never going to happen,' Dixon added. The military trial against Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators has been delayed for years as the US government tried to determine how to handle the issue of the torture of individuals at CIA prisons, and the question of whether evidence obtained through torture was admissible in court. Dixon previously told CNN that the government is 'unwilling' to admit evidence in trial 'about the defendants' torture.' The pretrial agreements were announced last summer after 27 months of negotiation, and took the possibility of the death sentence off the table for Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi, and Walid Bin 'Attash. They required that the accused plead guilty to all charges against them and would undergo a public sentencing hearing in which they would be required to answer questions by family members and survivors of the September 11 attack. The agreements drew fierce backlash, both politically and from some groups representing 9/11 victims and their families who had pushed for the death penalty. But just days after the news of the agreements was publicized, Austin revoked them, saying the final decision should be left to him and not the official overseeing the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier. Austin also withdrew Escallier's authority over the cases. Austin's revocation kicked off a months-long legal battle. Attorneys representing the three conspirators called Austin's actions corrupt and unprecedented, and argued that it was not legal due to a regulation in the military's own Manual for Military Commissions, which says a pretrial agreement can only be withdrawn before the accused begins 'performance of promises' or if they do not hold up their end of the agreement. A defense attorney for Mohammed argued in August last year that his client had already begun 'very important, substantive, specific performance,' and therefore Austin's actions were too late. The military judge overseeing the trials of the three men appeared to agree, ruling in November that the plea agreements were 'valid and enforceable.' A defense official told CNN at the time that the judge, Col. Matthew McCall, rules that not only are they legal and enforceable but 'that [Austin] was too late in doing that.' A military appeals court also ruled against Austin in December. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling on Friday that Austin had 'full legal authority' to withdraw from the pretrial agreements, and said there 'no prior performance of promises contained in those agreements prevented the Secretary's withdrawal.' CNN's Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
